DAVID R. DOAK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's summary denial of a habeas corpus petition on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the petition should have been filed in the Sixth Judicial Circuit where the conviction occurred, without reaching the merits of Doak's eight claims.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a conviction must be filed in the judicial circuit where the conviction occurred, not in a different appellate district.
[1] A habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction must be filed in the judicial circuit where the conviction occurred, not in a different appellate district.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid R. Doak was convicted in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, and filed a habeas corpus petition raising eight claims includi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, David R. Doak, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, Petitioner raised the following eight claims: (1) he was tried and convicted by a contaminated juror; (2) his right to discovery was violated; (3) his counsel failed to procure a DNA expert and familiarize himself with DNA evidence; (4) his counsel failed to investigate alternate theories of defense including insanity by intoxication; (5) the trial court erred in determining that statements made by a co-defendant fell within the excited utterance hearsay exception; (6) the trial court erred in allowing a taped statement to be introduced as a past recollection recorded; (7) the trial court erred in allowing irrelevant and prejudicial evidence; and (8) the trial court erred in allowing prejudicial and inadmissible evidence to taint his trial.
In response to Petitioner’s appeal, the State contends that the trial court properly denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction since the he was convicted in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, requiring venue to lie therein. We affirm the trial court’s order on that basis, without prejudice to refile the claims in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida.
We express no opinion on the merits of Petitioner’s claims.
Affirmed.